Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:111433
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <alpine.DEB.2.23.453.2008100935570.7489@singlemalt.home.derickrethans.nl>
 <CALKiJKrNxRqhLmqE0t=_qQX90Qy3+qT_FBXZQ5t_g0r2-jV2AQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvSBVPfd3HUy+JHLEL-Z4yC87N+ZD=qHi=CMjLC9hSErogWdg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEPJduk9BGAcVOmJcVmCSkCs5C53A2EkTtRqtJXjZ=wtmYxHzA@mail.gmail.com> <CALKiJKpdwcxG8AJr2FgMhg18=EdkS_0yFr+dMKT3c8bLOg_cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALKiJKpdwcxG8AJr2FgMhg18=EdkS_0yFr+dMKT3c8bLOg_cXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 15:56:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEPJduksPh2=CO8b6aB=dZPRbBAY8Z0+5_Rm2XKK-cDAnVUwzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP Developers Mailing List <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005983b005ac8651bf"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Shorter Attribute Syntax Change
From: kontakt@beberlei.de (Benjamin Eberlei)

--0000000000005983b005ac8651bf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 3:40 PM Rowan Tommins <rowan.collins@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Benjamin Eberlei <kontakt@beberlei.de>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:28 AM Peter Bowyer <phpmailinglists@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I have voted no because I asked a question about the ending delimiter
> and
> >> why () didn't count. Another person asked a similar question and neither
> >> of
> >> us got a reply.
> >>
> >
> > () does not count as ending symbol, because it is not required, as such
> > its not an ending symbol.
> >
>
>
> The question asked was that _if the parentheses were made mandatory_, would
> this provide the same benefits ascribed to the other syntaxes?
>
> To avoid repeating myself, here are the previous posts where I elaborated
> on this question:
>
> * https://externals.io/message/111312#111342
> * https://externals.io/message/111312#111354


For me It would indeed make a slight difference, but not wanting to speak
for Theodore, I believe he did not want to add this as another option to
vote upon, when I asked him. based on the argument that new also doesn't
require () it makes sense to me.

And for me I didn't want to add it, because then we can just go back to
<<>>, which would at least be symmetrical. I.e. @@Jit() vs <<Jit>>

>
>
>
> Regards,
> --
> Rowan Tommins
> [IMSoP]
>

--0000000000005983b005ac8651bf--